Louisiana v. Callais began as a racial gerrymandering case: a 2024 conflict between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, in Louisiana’s congressional map redistricting. However, on the last day of its term, the Supreme Court announced the decision would reflect a larger issue: whether Section 2 — an act that prohibits laws relating to voting that result in discrimination — remains constitutional. This decision could significantly impact representation for communities of color around the country.
The Voting Rights Act was initially passed in 1965 to protect minority voting rights during the Civil Rights movement. The act was later expanded with bipartisan support in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan and has since successfully shielded marginalized communities from schemes that limit their voting power.
In recent years, several hearings have questioned the act’s power and validity. In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 5 of the act — a preclearance formula requiring oversight for certain jurisdictions. Following this decision, states no longer required federal approval for new voting rules. According to Brennan Center research, since this limitation, a racial gap in voter turnout has resulted, especially in jurisdictions previously captured by Section 5.
Without this requirement, emphasis has been put on the legislation of Section 2 to combat discrimination, challenging districts that split, pack, or weaken voting strength. Now, this section is being challenged, as the Supreme Court reconsiders the act’s validity.
As of late 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has pulled back from enforcing Section 2 claims, stating that it has been overused and politicized to force racial outcomes in the election.
Louisiana v. Callais involves a congressional map drawn in the state of Louisiana that added a second majority–Black district in response to a potential Section 2 violation. The plaintiffs, Louisiana, stated the map draws too heavily on race and violates the U.S Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments on equal protection rights.
“The authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future,” Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to lawyers during an oral argument.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) stated that Section 2 remains a vital tool for minority voters to challenge systemic discrimination and map-drawing practices that dilute their power. Supporters fear that if Section 2 is narrowed or struck down, states could easily draw maps that dilute minority voting power, signaling broader changes in voting-rights laws that could reshape U.S. democracy. While certain state laws can fill these gaps, they are a poor substitute for the strong federal standard that Section 2 provides.
“We believe in the future of this multiracial democracy. The right to vote is still the lifeblood of our democracy and it must be protected at all costs.” Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said.
